Search

IntroductionDespite a growing body of research on the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, there is continued controversy given heterogeneity in the quality and design of published studies.MethodsWe screened ongoing studies in our sequential, prospective meta-analysis. We pooled individual participant data to estimate the absolute and relative risk (RR) of adverse outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with confirmed negative pregnancies. We evaluated the risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.ResultsWe screened 137 studies and included 12 studies in 12 countries involving 13 136 pregnant women.Pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection-as compared with uninfected pregnant women-were at significantly increased risk of maternal mortality (10 studies; n=1490; RR 7.68, 95% CI 1.70 to 34.61); admission to intensive care unit (8 studies; n=6660; RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.03 to 7.17); receiving mechanical ventilation (7 studies; n=4887; RR 15.23, 95% CI 4.32 to 53.71); receiving any critical care (7 studies; n=4735; RR 5.48, 95% CI 2.57 to 11.72); and being diagnosed with pneumonia (6 studies; n=4573; RR 23.46, 95% CI 3.03 to 181.39) and thromboembolic disease (8 studies; n=5146; RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 27.12).Neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to be admitted to a neonatal care unit after birth (7 studies; n=7637; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.08); be born preterm (7 studies; n=6233; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.29) or moderately preterm (7 studies; n=6071; RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.88 to 4.54); and to be born low birth weight (12 studies; n=11 930; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.40). Infection was not linked to stillbirth. Studies were generally at low or moderate risk of bias.ConclusionsThis analysis indicates that SARS-CoV-2 infection at any time during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal death, severe maternal morbidities and neonatal morbidity, but not stillbirth or intrauterine growth restriction. As more data become available, we will update these findings per the published protocol.

Background: Data on SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy and infancy has accumulated throughout the course of the pandemic, though evidence regarding asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and adverse birth outcomes are scarce. Limited information is available from countries in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The pregnant woman and infant COVID in Africa study (PeriCOVID Africa) is a South-South-North partnership involving hospitals and health centres in five countries: Malawi, Uganda, Mozambique, The Gambia, and Kenya. The study leveraged data from three ongoing prospective cohort studies: Preparing for Group B Streptococcal Vaccines (GBS PREPARE), SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 in women and their infants in Kampala and Mukono (COMAC) and Pregnancy Care Integrating Translational Science Everywhere (PRECISE). In this paper we describe the seroepidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women enrolled in sites in Uganda and Malawi, and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on pregnancy and infant outcomes. Outcome: Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in maternal blood, reported as the proportion of seropositive women by study site and wave of COVID-19 within each country. Methods: The PeriCOVID study was a prospective mother-infant cohort study that recruited pregnant women at any gestation antenatally or on the day of delivery. Maternal and cord blood samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using Wantai and Euroimmune ELISA. In periCOVID Uganda and Malawi nose and throat swabs for SARS-Cov-2 RT-PCR were obtained. Results: In total, 1379 women were enrolled, giving birth to 1387 infants. Overall, 63% of pregnant women had a SARS-CoV-2 positive serology. Over subsequent waves (delta and omicron), in the absence of vaccination, seropositivity rose from 20% to over 80%. The placental transfer GMR was 1.7, indicating active placental transfer of anti-spike IgG. There was no association between SARS-CoV-2 antibody positivity and adverse pregnancy or infancy outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The balance of risks and benefits of COVID-19 vaccination in children is more complex than in adults with limited paediatric data resulting in no global consensus on whether all healthy children should be vaccinated. We sought to assess the safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of childhood vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, as well as better understanding perceptions of vaccination in parents and vaccine experts. Methods: We performed a literature review for COVID-19 vaccine safety, efficacy, effectiveness, and perceptions. We searched international safety databases for safety data and developed an electronic survey to elicit country-specific COVID-19 immunisation data, including vaccine regulations, policies, rates, and public attitudes solicited from vaccine experts. Results: Nine studies were included in the final safety analysis. Local reactions were frequently reported across all studies and vaccine types. Adverse events reported to surveillance systems tended to be non-serious, and commonly included injection site reactions and dizziness. Twenty-three studies reported immunogenicity, efficacy, and effectiveness data. There were nine randomised control trials of six different vaccine types, which showed seroconversion of neutralising antibodies in vaccinated children ranging from 88% to 100%. The vaccine efficacy for Pfizer and Moderna vaccines ranged from 88% to 100%. There were 118 survey responses representing 55 different countries. Reported vaccination rates ranged from <1% to 98%. Most respondents described "mixed opinions" regarding paediatric vaccination policies in their country. By region, a more positive public attitude towards vaccination correlated with higher vaccination rates. Discussion: In this mixed-methods review, we have found evidence that vaccination against COVID-19 in children is safe, efficacious, and effective. Overall, the combined evidence from both the literature review and survey highlights the need for further data on both the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccinations in children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospital visiting policies made communication challenging. Effective communication is known to reduce anxiety for patients and relatives, and improve trust in healthcare services. We describe an innovative project in which students and staff were deployed to the role of 'Relative Communicators', enabling routine updates and facilitating video calls between patients and their next of kin (NOK). The aim of our project was to explore NOK's perceptions of communication about their inpatient relatives and the Relative Communicators. Participants were asked to complete a structured interview over a telephone call but could use the online form if this was not possible. Hence, we obtained data using a combination of interviews and online surveys. NOK, who utilized the relative communicator service (n = 30), were surveyed. Quantitative data and free-text responses were analysed to understand their perceptions. 85.7% of respondents (24/28) were satisfied with information they received from Relative Communicators. 43.3% (13/30) of NOK felt they could communicate with their relative 'the right amount', and 56.7% (17/30) felt they were sufficiently involved in care decisions. Qualitative data provided further insights around the demand for proactive updates, frustration with existing communication models, and praise of telecommunication methods. We suggest proactive updates and telecommunication could improve the experience for patients and NOK. Relative Communicators provided a bridge for inpatients and NOK to connect. The pandemic has exacerbated systemic communication issues and innovations, such as the Relative Communicators, may help to address these challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]